“7. It is trite to say that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification in
Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section
9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of this Court.
The facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of
the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the
substantive evidence of a witness is the
statement made in Court. The evidence of mere
identification of the accused person at the trial
for the first time is from its very nature
inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a
prior test identification, therefore, is to test and
strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.

It is accordingly considered a safe rule of
prudence to generally look for corroboration of
the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to
the identity of the accused who are strangers to
them, in the form of earlier identification
proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is
subject to exceptions, when, for example, the
Court is impressed by a particular witness on
whose testimony it can safely rely, without such
or other corroboration. The identification
parades belong to the stage of investigation, and 8

there is no provision in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which obliges the investigating
agency to hold, or confers a right upon the
accused to claim, a test identification parade.
They do not constitute substantive evidence and
these parades are essentially governed by
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Failure to hold a test identification parade would
not make inadmissible the evidence of
identification in Court. The weight to be attached
to such identification should be a matter for the
Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may
accept the evidence of identification even
without insisting on corroboration.

* * * * * * * * * *

17. It is well settled that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification in
Court and the test identification parade provides
corroboration to the identification of the witness
in court, if required. However, what weight must
be attached to the evidence of identification in
Court, which is not preceded by a test
identification parade, is a matter for the Courts
of fact to examine. In the instant case, the
Courts below have concurrently found the
evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable and,
therefore, there was no need for the
corroboration of her evidence in Court as she
was found to be implicitly reliable.